PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad high court has observed that it is ‘wrong’ for any person in secular India to claim that a particular religion is the “only true religion”, as it implies a “disparagement” of other faiths and attracts section 295A of IPC.With this, Justice Saurabh Srivastava, in his judgment dated March 18, dismissed a quashing petition filed by Reverend Father Vineet Vincent Pereira, who is facing charges under section 295A IPC (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs). According to an FIR, the applicant allegedly conducted prayer meetings where he frequently stated that Christianity is the only religion, thereby hurting the sentiments of a particular religion, i.e. Hindu. During investigation, though the investigation officer (IO) concluded that no illegal religious conversion had taken place, the police proceeded with the chargesheet regarding the allegations of criticising other religions. Father Vincent’s counsel argued that he was falsely implicated and as per the FIR, no offence under section 295A IPC was made out. It was argued that the magistrate took cognizance of the chargesheet without applying a judicial mind. The state, on the other hand, argued that the applicant’s contentions involved disputed questions of fact and required an appreciation of evidence. Justice Srivastava stressed that India is a land where people of all faiths and beliefs in a secular state as defined by the Constitution of India, live together. “Therefore, it is wrong for any religion to claim that it is the only true religion as it implies a disparagement of other faiths,” the bench said. The court concluded that the opening line of section 295A specifically deals with “deliberate and malicious” intentions to outrage the feelings of any class of citizen by insulting its religion or religious faith. It added that the applicant’s act falls within the ambit of section 295-A of the IPC, and, as such, at this stage, it cannot be said prima facie no case is made. The court clarified that a magistrate is only required to record a prima facie opinion based on the material on record and not hold a mini trial. “At the stage of taking cognizance, a court’s primary focus is to determine if a prima facie case exists, meaning whether there is sufficient evidence to suggest that an offense has been committed, and not to delve into the merits of the case or the evidence,” the court noted.